If you want to speculate, you should use VIVA Coin, not VIVA Crowns. VIVA Coin is designed to be a speculative instrument with a fixed range of motion. Like pistons in an engine.
This is a naïve view of cryptoeconomics if you ask me
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's been my experience that people who use the word naive in reference to other's knowledge of a given topic, are looking in the mirror when they say it.
Naive is one of those words that gets tossed around a lot when people don't know enough to form a solid opinion and they see something that is counter intuitive, but their mind is locked in an old or outmoded way of thinking.
"You're naive!", is the last dying gasp of the uncritically thinking mind before it opens to new concepts.
So instead of the ad hominem, how about we discuss your superior informed point of view.
Because I am in fact, asking you.
Actually read the whitepaper then tell us all about how this fails in your esteemed opinion please.
Or walk away and don't bother with the discussion, if you're refusing to contribute anything of value, because you're just trolling.
I strongly disagree with the VIVA economic parameters. They have created a complex system without a clear understanding of what exactly will happen when game theory is applied. I don't want a lecture on the meaning of naive, I happen to have experience in this area and am familiar with the project.
This quote is a prime example of the misunderstandings regarding how decenteralized networks function. After my assessment, this project is not bringing anything worthwhile to the table. The ICO serves only to make some early investors some cash.
edit - I could be very wrong about the ICO intentions but looking at the economic parameters, I am not very confidant about the technology and economic theory behind their stable coins. Projects like MakerDAO and StabL offer much more compelling stable token projects.
It's interesting you feel this way.
You say that it's complex and you don't understand it all. That's ok it does take a long time to think it through.
I'm really glad you're taking the anti side on this.
It means you're trying to think it through and I'll be the first to admit that it does "feel complex", but so does every other crypto currency and we're a lot more than a crypto currency; We're a new economy with new goals.
Unlike EVERY OTHER crypto out there. The crypto currency VIVA is not an end unto itself. It is a means to accomplish a certain specific set of goals.
These goals are to reduce economic friction, eliminate government and banker waste, decentralize control of the financial system and provide a stable reliable platform that people can build real businesses on without fear of interference.
At the same time we counter balance that by acknowledging that jobs are going away, compute and network resources are being commoditized and yet people still need to eat. So we take half the energy of the system and use it to feed the greater economic good of those who really do need it most. We seek to provide a living wage for anyone who wants to be part of this and they don't need to buy a single damned thing to begin.
Just like they don't need to buy anything to start making money by posting on steemit. We have a system to reward content creators and half of the fees generated by the network go specifically into that system. The biggest difference in that regard is really that all votes are worth the same amount and each vote goes to a person's long term fund called the VIP or VIVA Investment Pool.
Balancing all of this out, is complex. We're trying to balance financial responsibility with social responsibility and in most cases, these are at odds with one another. It can be done, but it needs a reassesment of why things are they way they are in your so called "cryptoeconomics". I mean have you ever considered what really happens in every other crypto when you get bad actors?
You mention high minded concepts like "game theory" but don't provide any actual analysis. I did though, my off the cuff post comparing the theory aspects of various consensus models is one of the most viewed and shared articles in my entire posting history and even ended up on several crypto news sites. So yes I've applied "game theory", as well as economic theory. But I will be more than happy to debate this with you. It's literally my favorite thing to do on the internet.
I know you're better than this. But your comments read like you don't actually understand what you're talking about. You sound like you are rejecting the ideas based on the fact you don't understand rather than providing any actual analysis.
I would LOVE to read an actual analysis from you. You have the time to comment you don't like it. I would hope you have the time to explain what exactly bothers you other than the fact you're feeling like the complexity it too much to understand and you don't like the parameters. For instance what parameters? There's about a hundred of them and they're all configurable. Can you call some out that you think are misconfigured at least?
I know I come off as harsh, but it's only because I'm exhausted right now.
I look forward to your responses.
No, I said that it is complex and that because I understand it, I assert that the developers do not know what they are doing.
Enough with the advertising.
What of these is novel?
No way this is resistant to a Sybil attack. I do not think their structure for governance will work. I do like their use of Hyperledger. The incentive structures of the ICO launch and their valuation are questionable. I haven't seen any code yet...
You are just thoughing around lots of assumptions and statements and no arguments. Once you have written a single argument I 'll consider reading more of what you have to say. Otherwise this is just a big opinion blurp.
It is entirely my opinion right now, no code to judge. My argument centers around the lack of a proven economic model - especially needed when dealing with a complex network. This problem is exasperated with the seemingly Sybil prone Crown model.